New Sanctions Won’t Help Iran Negotiations

Reacting to the Iran hawks’ contention that piling more sanctions on Iran will “help” diplomacy, Colin Kahl poses the following thought experiment:

Suppose the Majles, Iran’s legislature, passed legislation tomorrow, over Rouhani’s objections, declaring that Iran would resume and escalate its nuclear activities in six months’ time if Washington failed to live up to its Geneva commitments and agree to a final deal that fully respects Iran’s nuclear rights. Imagine that the legislation threatened to resume enrichment of nearly bomb-grade 20 percent uranium (halted by Geneva); bring all 16,000 first-generation centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment site online (only 9,000 were operating pre-Geneva) and move to install thousands more; activate the 1,000 next-generation centrifuges currently installed at Natanz (none are operational now) and step up planned assembly of 2,000 new ones; activate all 3,000 centrifuges at the deeply buried Fordow enrichment site (only 1,000 were spinning pre-Geneva), making the facility fully operation for the first time; begin enriching to the even-closer-to-bomb-grade 60 percent level for “civilian naval propulsion”; and significantly accelerate fuel production for the Arak plutonium reactor.

Suppose further that when asked by an Iranian reporter whether this legislation risked undercutting diplomacy, speaker of the Majles Ali Larijani pooh-poohed the notion, assuring the media that this in no way violates the terms agreed to in Geneva. After all, Larjani would say, “Iran is doing nothing now. We are simply creating a sword of Damocles as leverage to ensure the Americans live up to their end of the bargain and accept a final agreement that respects Iran’s red lines.”

How would U.S. lawmakers view such a move? Would they see it as consistent with the letter and spirit of Geneva? Would it enhance American support for diplomacy? Would the threatened Iranian escalation be helpful to Obama as he works to convince skeptics on Capitol Hill of the need to back continued negotiations and support future compromise? Or would it put the administration on the defensive, confirm the worst American suspicions about Iranian intentions, complicate diplomacy and make a confrontation over the nuclear program more likely?

The sight of John Kerry testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday tried one’s faith in the legislative body. Kerry was professional and effective, but a majority of congressmen were clearly reading from Bibi’s talking points. It’s kind of amusing to see a congressman from Alabama somberly reading long quotations from the Times ofIsrael. It’s difficult to know in which cases congressmen and women actually hope that legislating new sanctions will destroy the Iran negotiations (I suspect most of them, but I’m not sure) and in which cases they credulously believe that a vote for more sanctions will actually aid the administration in negotiations, or at least be harmless. (As well as appease their AIPAC donors, inevitably a major consideration.)

There’s somewhat of an assumption being made about the pro-sanction people that I bet isn’t warranted.

That assumption is that the sanctions they want would merely be activated either in the event Iran violates the current short-term agreement, or if Obama fails to bring it to his terms in a long-term agreement.

While mischievous enough in intent my betting is that the terms of those that will be proposed will in fact attempt to impose them unless Iran agrees to certain things in the long-term accord, thereby trying to impose conditions on Obama that he would then have to try to impose on Iran. Possibly even terms that are known and intended to make such a long-term agreement impossible such as denying Iran any enrichment rights whatsoever.

As a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran accepts continuing IAEA inspection and has an internationally recognized right to develop and implement nuclear technology. Having rejected both IAEA inspection and the NPT, Israel has no such right. Yet the Jewish State has hundreds of nukes and openly threatens Iran, actually campaigns for war against Iran. Israel, not Iran, is the warmonger. Resolution lies with lifting all sanctions and compensating Iran for damages from the $$$ billions we will no longer be giving the Jewish state. American foreign policy must again serve American interests, not the Jewish state’s paranoid pursuit of invulnerability, territorial conquest and racist empire in and beyond the Mideast.

Members of congress who want to impose further sanctions are obviously opposed to any negotiated peace with Iran. What then, if not peace? Why war of course. They are in the employ of war profiteers and/or Zionists. They are in it for the money.

While the AIPAC influence is obvious, one might consider folks like Chuck Schumer as a case study in conflicted loyalties. Like Ed Koch, Joe Lieberman and a host of other Jewish Democrats, Schumer obviously wants to support Israel, yet his blind acceptance of Likudnik policies shows a startlingly naive worldview. Israel cannot “win” a war with Iran, and the US public is NOT on board with starting another war. (The GOP’s desperate reliance on the Dominionists will yield less and less success at the polls.) So Schumer and his fellow Israel Firsters grope wildly around for anything they “think” will help the Jewish state. Not terribly smart.

I get the impression from the pro sanctions people that they don’t really want Iran to comply with nuclear constraints. What they really are trying to do is to provoke Iran, so that we can have a war with them. They appear to actually want a war.

The thing is though, the so called “surgical aerial strikes” will not do the job. To really shut down the Iran nuclear program totally, would require boots on the ground. it would be ugly, with lots of casualities, economic catastrophe, and who knows what other consequences.

Iran can be deterred. They talk crazy at times, but are they really going to attack Israel who has a couple hundred nukes and also with the US having thousands of nukes, potentially getting involved? I think the Iranians are more bark than bite.

Democrat aide,
“This poll( poll, commissioned by Al-Masdar.net and the Israel Project’s The Tower website ) shows that the White House has an clear uphill battle with rank and file Democrats, not to mention Democrats in Congress. If you look at Secretary Kerry’s hearing in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, you can see that it’s not just Republicans and neoconservatives who have serious questions about this deal. You don’t have to be a warmonger to support increasing sanctions against Iran during these talks.The White House pushback on the Senate effort doesn’t seem to be resonating with voters.”